We have people who are considered voices within the conservative media that have called for excutions, Roger Hedgecock for one.

Never heard of him and I couldn't find anything on him other than he was mayor of San Diego and that he is now a talk show host. What did he say and did he say it during his political career or during his talk show career?

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

A few members of this forum have asked me, since I am a poor man, why I would vote against my own interest. Some of you seem perplexed that any woman or minority person could possibly bring themselves to vote for a Republican.

I assume that I am not the only person on this forum, and certainly not in this country, who votes on ideas and what I think is right...not what is in the best interest for my pocket.

Yes, there are black republicans and I'd be willing to bet that the Kock brothers haven't bought them all. So, I guess since the Republican party only exists as a racist entity upholding the values of the rich white man, that makes any black republican an Uncle Tom. It's the only reasonable explanation since it makes no sense that anyone would vote against their own self interest unless they are getting kickbacks.

However, since racism is institutionalized...the poor minority only have two options. Either vote for the party that will take care of them from cradle to grave or sell out and get filthy rich from the Republican party.

I don't know any more. I thought it was owning some land, putting a home on it and raising a family but it seems, now, that the dream is having the government take care of you, whether it can afford to or not, as long as you vote for the party that promises to tax the fuck out of the rich land owners.

A few members of this forum have asked me, since I am a poor man, why I would vote against my own interest. Some of you seem perplexed that any woman or minority person could possibly bring themselves to vote for a Republican.

I assume that I am not the only person on this forum, and certainly not in this country, who votes on ideas and what I think is right...not what is in the best interest for my pocket.

And what is right...is making sure the law recognizes that rape that results in pregnancy is not legitimately a rape. Yes, I can see why women get behind that sort of thing.

And what is right...is making sure the law recognizes that rape that results in pregnancy is not legitimately a rape. Yes, I can see why women get behind that sort of thing.

Oh yeah, cause H.R. 6969 seeks to define rape that results in pregnancy as illegitimate rape. And I must support that bill blindly because I'se a hate mongerin womanizn dark ages type conservative.

Everybody knows a woman can't get pregnant if she don't wont to. So all them gals gettin them abortions? They just cold blooded murderers trying to hide behind the protection of the law. Yup.

And that's why I support the Republican Party 100%....I don't care if it's Todd Aiken or David Duke. I VOTE REPUBLICAN cause those poor rich folk need that money and I might want to make some too someday.

Seriously, how many evils can we lump onto one party? Seems to me you should focus your efforts on eradicating the GOP before you tackle Christianity. You know, cause there are some Christians who vote democrat...so they can't be all bad.

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Not all Republicans are bad people. The mayor of my city is a Republican. He's been Mayor for 20 years. I've voted for him 4 times in a row. He's done a lot to help move the city forward; especially by diversifying it, and allowing more business to come in. The city has gone from 6,000 (mostly white, like 96% white) to 35,000+ (only 88% white now). I think he's a good guy. Though weird. If anyone not knowing he was a lifelong Republican (old school type, was also Mayor of the city back in the 1970s) they'd think he's a Democrat. But, he's not. I voted for Charlie Crist. Even Jeb Bush (once). I will vote for a moderate Republican but not a conservative one. When a mod/repub speaks out against his/her party it usually ends their careers. They are outnumbered. Even if they went to the Democratic party, that doesn't guarantee them success in that party. Where in the past switching parties may not have been such a big deal, today it seems to mean everything. As if you betray your own party, then, in a way, you are betraying your country, or something.

Political parties seem to have become fundamental ideological viewpoints where it's one way, their way, and no other. I think this is why 3rd parties find it difficult to succeed at almost anything. Even though most in 3rd parties are usually former members of the two main parties, or, they lean that way. Either way.

It's a Civil War, with a secondary war in the Republican party. The Democrats aren't really fighting. Not like the Republicans. I don't know if that's worse for the Republicans, or the Democrats.

If the neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs why did they even bother to come up with a healthcare plan in the first place?

The way that I understand neoconservatism, or at least the way that I hear people use the term, is that it's mostly a label that describes one's view on foreign policy. I know that there's a history to it and that it goes back to people like Bill Kristal's dad, and a rejection of liberalism and what not, but I think that most of us would associate it with the foreign policy of George W Bush and his first term specifically. Not all Republicans or conservatives are neocons. Rand Paul and Ron Paul, for example, advocate drawing back our military entanglements. And then there are the realists. And I used to sometimes run with the libertarians who tend to lean more to the right, especially these days since Obama has gone back on most of what he promised in terms of civil liberties.

In any case, they came up with a plan because we have a laughably inefficient health care system that costs more and delivers less than the systems that are enjoyed by citizens of other developed nations. They came up with a plan because they wanted to have an alternative to what Bill Clinton was trying to do. And at the time, I'm sure there were plenty of people that thought it was the right thing to do and that something should be done. Mitt Romney, after all, used this as a model for his health care reform bill in Massachusetts.

By the time W came into power they had other priorities, like wars, tax cuts, social security reform, medicare reform, and immigration reform.

I do not see the same level of dishonesty from the left, nor have I ever.

And you never will if your only source of info comes from a sympathizing source.

You really should take the time to actually listen to the opposition, not just what your sources tell you about what the opposition has said.

I think that I agree with both of you. I don't think that I've ever seen a campaign as dishonest as the one that Mitt Romney et al are running. All politicians bend the truth to meet the needs of the narratives that they are trying to establish, but this is something else entirely.

That said, I don't think that you can just read Think Progress and watch Rachael Maddow and feel like you're being as informed as yo can be. I don't think it'd hurt to go take a look at say, the National Review Online or the Daily Caller.

You're misrepresenting his remarks. He's riffing on the idea that the Republicans had no plan. Yes, Obama's plan was based on the Republican plan from the 90s, and the Romney plan. But by 2009, the Republicans in Congress had abandoned that plan.

Another major part of the of the stategy of staying in power for Republican is to please the Religious Right, and I'm not part of the religious right, and part of their interest would be to KILL me, having them not in power is in my own interest.

The dominionists that might be in favor of that sort of thing are of the religious right but they do not constitute the whole of it. They're a fringe of the fringe. As wacky as Michelle Bachman is, for example, I've yet to hear her say anything to indicate that even if, God forbid, she were able to somehow managed to come into power she'd try to kill us.

Furthermore, I see the relative health of national economies that are capitalist with some socialist elements such as Germany or Denmark, and the horrible economies of purely capitalist societies like Somalia. The Democrats seem to be closer aligned with the former, and the Republican with the latter, it is in my best interest to vote Democrat.

I've never heard a conservative argue that we should have no government whatsoever. Where conservatives and liberals disagree is on what the scope and size of that government should be. I've never heard a mainstream conservative argue that government shouldn't be able to do things like police neighborhoods, protect property and contract rights, provide national security, educate children etc. I've heard plenty of disagreements about how and what services might be delivered, ie should we allow school voucher programs, but no one is arguing for anarchy. Even the most radical Republican plans would just do things like cap government spending at something like 18 percent of GDP.

Really, one of the issues that they're trying to push in the convention is this idea that under Obama there is regulatory uncertainty. Business, they say, needs to be able to have some reasonable expectations of what sort of regulatory environment they will be dealing with going forward. That's not exactly pining for the lack of a functioning government.

Oh, another example that might fit with the "kill" comment. Their position on health care, abortion, contraception, and other women's issues, will mean more women dying. Examples? Planned Parenthood provides breast cancer screening, often to lower income persons who would otherwise not have access. Those women might DIE if they miss an early diagnosis because of such policies. I, for instance, was diagnosed as stage II with a mammogram.

There are a lot of (current) republican policies that are anti-life, in my opinion.

Indeed.

Honestly, however heterodox you are in your views, I think it's important for people who vote for Republicans to understand that this is what you are voting for too. So yeah, you can brush off the comments about legitimate rape, about personhood amendments, about cuts to Planned Parenthood, etc. Maybe it's not what you believe, personally. But this is what you're voting for if you're voting Republican in 2012.

A few members of this forum have asked me, since I am a poor man, why I would vote against my own interest.

That you are.

Republicans didn't want the health care program. They don't want any health care program, for that matter. They developed their health care program to (1) make it look like they were doing something and to (2) ensure that any plan would be as completely privatized as possible, just in case some wild-eyed Republican actually wanted to pass something.

Earlier, you asked why Obama passed health care legislation that was originally designed by Republicans. The reason he offered the Republican-designed legislation is that he knew that true universal health care wouldn't pass, mainly due to Republican representatives in Congress. He specifically chose a plan that had been sponsored by the Republican party (at one point), supported by Republican think-tanks, supported by a Republican governor and was operating in one state (Massachusetts), so that the Republicans who were in opposition to him couldn't refuse. Why would they? But they did. They cut off their own noses to spite their faces. The current Republican candidate for President cannot even acknowledge the cognitive dissonance of his party versus the Massachusetts plan versus what Obama sponsored and Democratic members of Congress passed. Romney is running away from it like it is a 57 Plymouth Fury. A couple of weeks ago a wildfire spread through the media when one of Romney's campaign staff, during a national broadcast, suggested that a person in a competing campaign ad would have been better off if he had lived in Massachusetts at the time he was laid off from work because he would still have a health care option available to him. Um, what? Pardon me? Apparently, she didn't get the memo to avoid speaking about the Massachusetts plan, and amazingly she's still employed by Romney's campaign. Apparently Romney doesn't like to fire people all that much.

Why run away from something you did, that you were proud of and is helpful? Oh, because somebody else doesn't like it. Oh, gollygeewillikers -- what's a Mormon to do?

Some of you seem perplexed that any woman or minority person could possibly bring themselves to vote for a Republican.

Even before now, yes. I left the Republican party long after I should have. Ronald Reagan, after switching his affiliation from Democrat to Republican (early 1960s) famously said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." This is how I felt years ago -- about the Republican party. As an atheist, I am specifically not welcome. As an intellectual, I am not welcome. As one who likes investment in education and scientific research, I am not welcome. As a person who has worked in a hospital, handled medical billing, handled health insurance claims and now sells health insurance, the perspective I have on the American health care system is unique, I am not welcome. Every time I hear my Republican family members (of which there are many) say that they are having this or that problem with health care -- getting a product or service approved, getting it paid for, paying their share, etc -- I remind them that they should stop bitching about what they keep voting for. You keep voting for Republicans, you get to keep the same system you are bitching about. Kismet.

Republicans will tell you that you will no longer have your own doctor, you will no longer be in control of your own health care, you will wait months or years to have a medical procedure performed, your taxes will go up and there will be death panels who get to judge when you should be euthanized instead of getting more medical care. Really? This is not a joke. Republicans don't just engender this, or encourage others to speak it, they say it themselves, publicly, on the campaign trail, on the radio, on TV, etc. The fact of the matter is that in other countries that have universal health care, they still get to choose their doctors or hospitals, just like we do here, and they do sometimes have wait to see those doctors or to get into those hospitals to get the care they need, just like we do here, and they sometimes can't get everything they need or want because not everything is afforded, just like we do here. However, they do have an additional tax but that additional tax is in place of the health insurance premiums we pay, not in addition to, and their tax burden for health care is often less than the premiums we pay for our private health insurance. They get more bang for the buck. Everyone is covered so no one has to worry that having a good health care plan with their job as a requirement of their job -- they can take any job they like because they will always have health care, regardless. For many people in America, that would be freedom. For many employers in America, like myself, that would be freedom. However, the Republicans tell me that is not freedom. They say that having to obtain health insurance in the private market and pay for it is freedom. Republicans have a major intellectual and factual disconnect on that issue.

And, The Netherlands doesn't have any euthanization process in place, no matter how much Rick Santorum shouts it as true, it's not. And, the ACA doesn't have death panels, either, no matter how much Michele Bachmann wants to pitch that fork. To Republicans, the truth doesn't matter when they can just make shit up and people will believe it.

With regards to women and minorities and why any of them would vote Republican ... health care is a major concern for them and one that Republicans truly don't give a shit about. Statistically speaking, women make up about 51% of the population but consume about 80% of the health care offered. Why? Between the ages of 20-55, women consume an inordinate amount of health care compared to their representation in the population, and that's due to the physiology of their sex. They have more parts that have things go wrong, and consequently they need more procedures and medications. After 55, the morbidity rate for women is rather close to that of men. So, why would women vote for Republicans who say that these same women can just obtain health care in the private market on their own? It's difficult for them to do so. Why? Once you have some serious problems in your medical history, it can be impossible or just plain expensive to obtain health insurance. Assuming a woman could get health insurance, the premiums are 3-4x the amount that a man of the same age would pay. Why? Because in the field of insurance you match premium to risk. The more risk you present, the more premium you pay. When it comes to insuring everyone for health care, women present 3-4x the risk over men. When women aren't earning similar pay to men, paying for that health care at 3-4x the rate of men is just impossible. The ACA has some provisions to alleviate this kind of problem, but the Republicans are offering nothing in its stead.

Minorities often earn less and often work in jobs that provide no health care benefits at all. They cannot pay private health insurance premiums.

And, here we are with the Republicans repeatedly saying that they will repeal the ACA. The very act that gives people access to health care regardless of their employment status, regardless of their medical history, regardless of the amount of money they earn, and you think women and minorities should vote for a party that will take away their access to health care?

As an employer, I just want to hire people who can do the work. I don't want to be involved in my employees' health care. Period.

I assume that I am not the only person on this forum, and certainly not in this country, who votes on ideas and what I think is right...not what is in the best interest for my pocket.

When you speak of your pocket, I assume you mean that you don't want to pay more in taxes. Who has suggested that you will? Obama certainly hasn't, not unless your net income is $250,000/year or higher, and by other statements you have made I doubt that you are anywhere near that limit.

The Republicans, however, have suggested that people at lower income levels pay more taxes while affording more breaks to those making over $250,000/year -- you know, the job creators -- and allow you to pay for your own health insurance premiums with that hefty income you have. I am amazed that you can be so skeptical with regard religion but very gullible on other issues.

Yes, there are black republicans and I'd be willing to bet that the Kock brothers haven't bought them all.

I'm sure there are blacks who are Republicans. Good luck finding them. Even on the campaign trail Herman Cain had trouble finding them -- most of his followers were white. A polling firm, I forget which one, recently did a survey of black voters to determine who they will vote for: Obama or Romney. The result was that 94% were for Obama and 0% were for Romney. Perhaps that 6% in the middle represents both Republicans and Independents? If so, none in the survey were willing to say they were voting for Romney. I don't think Romney will be trolling for black votes in the Tidewater, in Cleveland, Columbus or Cincinnati, or in Miami or Orlando. The only thing he will hear are the crickets.

So, I guess since the Republican party only exists as a racist entity upholding the values of the rich white man, that makes any black republican an Uncle Tom. It's the only reasonable explanation since it makes no sense that anyone would vote against their own self interest unless they are getting kickbacks.

However, since racism is institutionalized...the poor minority only have two options. Either vote for the party that will take care of them from cradle to grave or sell out and get filthy rich from the Republican party. ...What is the American dream?

I don't know any more. I thought it was owning some land, putting a home on it and raising a family but it seems, now, that the dream is having the government take care of you, whether it can afford to or not, as long as you vote for the party that promises to tax the fuck out of the rich land owners.

If you want to be taken care of from cradle to grave, Republicans are quite helpful in that regard. Do you really think that Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, General Electric, etc, just come up with planes, missles, optics and what-not and go searching for a customer? No. These "defense contractors" wouldn't exist (or not exist anywhere near their prominence) without giant hand-outs from the US Government. Remember, anything the government spends money on is a hand-out, not just a welfare check, not just medical care, not just an education -- it's all a hand-out.

If the neocons didn't give a rat's ass about social programs why did they even bother to come up with a healthcare plan in the first place?

I dunno jay, why did they bother? maybe because when they came up with it it looked like a democratic avalanche coming down on them and it seemed like a better alternative? Or maybe I'm wrong. Do you think the neocons give a rats ass about people?

They did so in large part because they felt it would win them enough goodwill to get re-elected.

That is a claim. Prove it.

I think they did it because it is a good idea. Because every other industrial, developed nation has one. Because the electorate has problems paying for healthcare.

I agree both sides do things to stay in power. But I think the dems also do things because they still want good governance. The repubs have claimed for the last 35 years that government is the problem. When you elect people who hate government, you are unlikely to get good governance.

I dunno jay, why did they bother? maybe because when they came up with it it looked like a democratic avalanche coming down on them and it seemed like a better alternative? Or maybe I'm wrong. Do you think the neocons give a rats ass about people?

I don't really know enough about the neocons to form an opinion about what I think they care about. I'll probably start researching it in a few days...

The easy compromise would be for the states or the federal government to provide ID's for free. Since there are plenty of people willing to provide transportation to the voting booths I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to provide transportation to the DMV to get the ID's.

They can't ALL be racists and to paint an entire political party (or group of people) in one color is not an honest approach in the first place.

The plight of the Republican party is not too dissimilar to the plight of the American atheist as far as public perception goes.

The Democrats and their legion (many of whom are atheist) accuse Republicans of being obstructionists, racists, bigots. They charge them with waging a war on women, minorities and undocumented workers. They charge them with pandering to the rich 1%. The vast majority of Republicans are rich white men so these charges stick in the minds of the accusers.

The conservative Christians (many of whom are Republicans) accuse atheists of being arrogant, socialist, Godless heathens hell bent on destroying their Christian nation. They charge them with lying, immorality, being in favor of killing babies (then eating them). They view atheists as a bunch of drugged up devil worshipers. Ironically, the vast majority of atheists are relatively affluent white men.

In both these scenario's the accused must make a choice. Either try to climb over the huge barrier of false accusations in order to prove to their accusers that they are not guilty of the crimes they are charged with BEFORE they can even BEGIN to defend their position...ignore the accusations and carry on business as usual (which doesn't seem to be very productive) OR sling the mud right back at their accusers.

Since it's easier to sling mud than climb huge barriers, lines are drawn in the sand, enemies are made and not much good gets accomplished.

America is falling to pieces. This is not the time to take a stand and draw lines in the sand. Now is the time we should be setting aside our minor differences and try to look past each others hubris, treat each other as equals and come to a compromise for peaceful coexistence and a safe stable economy in which all of us can thrive.

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

The plight of the Republican party is not too dissimilar to the plight of the American atheist as far as public perception goes.

The Democrats and their legion (many of whom are atheist) accuse Republicans of being obstructionists, racists, bigots. They charge them with waging a war on women, minorities and undocumented workers. They charge them with pandering to the rich 1%. The vast majority of Republicans are rich white men so these charges stick in the minds of the accusers.

The conservative Christians (many of whom are Republicans) accuse atheists of being arrogant, socialist, Godless heathens hell bent on destroying their Christian nation. They charge them with lying, immorality, being in favor of killing babies (then eating them). They view atheists as a bunch of drugged up devil worshipers. Ironically, the vast majority of atheists are relatively affluent white men.

There are some huge differences that negate this analogy. Firstly, atheists have never comprised a percentage of the population even close to that of the Republican party. Secondly, the athiests started with the negative views against them while the Republicans have worked to accumulate their negative accusations (only some Republicans actually match those negative portrayals).

America is falling to pieces. This is not the time to take a stand and draw lines in the sand. Now is the time we should be setting aside our minor differences and try to look past each others hubris, treat each other as equals and come to a compromise for peaceful coexistence and a safe stable economy in which all of us can thrive.

This would be fantastic and I'd love it. Unfortunately compromise seems to have become a dirty word in Washington DC. And the false belief that capitalism will solve our problems is gaining with the Republicans (and not a few Democrats).

We used to have a middle class that made this country work (in several senses of the word). Then corporations decided that profits were all that mattered so they hired sociopaths who showed them how to kill their employees financially which fed the corporation in the short term. But capitalism depends upon consumers and the more consumers you put out of work or force into lower paying jobs the weaker the economy becomes. We are in a downward spiral and the Republicans want to deregulate and encourage the current policies instead of strengthening the economy. They claim their plans will help but these policies haven't in the past so why would they work now?

I have been disappointed by all the political parties (yes, even the 'independents') and would love to see major changes for the better but the only changes I see on the horizon make me afraid for our future. Right now the Republicans are at the forefront of America's downward spiral following directions from the CEOs and religious leaders so I won't vote for Romney.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"The country itself is better off," Leonhardt tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. The economy has stabilized since the recession in 2008, which was "a little bit worse than 1929," he says. "And yet, of course, we don't have anything that looks like the Great Depression. As bad as the economy is, we don't have unemployment at 20 percent."

But, Leonhardt says, when looking at measures such as household income and median wealth, "a typical American household is worse off than it was four years ago."

To be sure. That's why I only focused on the one thing they have in common. It is impossible for a xian to hear an argument presented by an atheist because of the prejudice surrounding atheists created by the xians.

It is similarly impossible for a liberal to hear an argument presented by a republican because of the prejudice surrounding republicans created by the liberals.

neither atheists nor republicans set out to be demonized. Insisting that republican policies are racist or bigoted because republicans are racist and bigoted and refusing to work with them because they are a bunch of racists and bigots is an ad hominem attack against a strawman and detracts from any real debate.

Quote

Unfortunately compromise seems to have become a dirty word in Washington DC

Then we the people need to change that and demand that our elected representatives work together instead of demonizing one another and pitting us against ourselves.

It would be nice if Hollywood and TV producers would bring us shows glorifying reasonable men and women who work together to find a good solution to a problem instead of glorifying men and women who stand their ground against insurmountable odds and crushing their antagonist.

It would be nice if we collectively hailed the ability to compromise and work together with people we may disagree with as heroic. Nobody wins when everyone is covered in shit.

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

What shapes the parties platforms might be a different matter but how can we sit in our armchairs and say with certainty that the Republican party's attempt to require an ID to vote at the polls is purely out of hate for dark skinned people?

I do not think it is purely out of hate for non-whites. But racism and bigotry is a tool they use to get what they want.

I read an OpEd piece about a month ago. I searched for it, but I cannot remember exactly when it was or who wrote it. The gist of it was this - the author of the editorial was at a dinner party and the topic of politics came up. He asked all and sundry (all white people) about whether anyone was uncomfortable with a black man in the White House. Almost everyone said yes. One person was uncomfortable with her own position and added "don't judge me". Are these people racists? I don't know. I suppose it depends how you define it. But race plays a definite roll in their decision process.

The easy compromise would be for the states or the federal government to provide ID's for free.

Yes, but they aren't doing that. And they are taking the position that is someone could conceiveably be inelligible, the voter has to prove he or she isn't. The simplest way to explain what they are doing is deliberate disenfranchisement.

The Democrats and their legion (many of whom are atheist) accuse Republicans of being obstructionists, racists, bigots. They charge them with waging a war on women, minorities and undocumented workers. They charge them with pandering to the rich 1%. The vast majority of Republicans are rich white men so these charges stick in the minds of the accusers.

Jay, all of this is true, with the possible exception of the racist stuff.

America is falling to pieces. This is not the time to take a stand and draw lines in the sand. Now is the time we should be setting aside our minor differences and try to look past each others hubris, treat each other as equals and come to a compromise for peaceful coexistence and a safe stable economy in which all of us can thrive.

The problem is not partisanship. The problem is the republican party has been taken over by liars, lunatics and corporations. Reasonable conservatives exist in the world. And they recognize the gop is bananas. Here are some: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

It is similarly impossible for a liberal to hear an argument presented by a republican because of the prejudice surrounding republicans created by the liberals.neither atheists nor republicans set out to be demonized. Insisting that republican policies are racist or bigoted because republicans are racist and bigoted and refusing to work with them because they are a bunch of racists and bigots is an ad hominem attack against a strawman and detracts from any real debate.

I'd say that it is difficult for both Democrats and Republicans to hear the other side because of prejudices on both sides - some of which are justified. The Republicans have done most of the damage to themselves while the Democrats are a little less self-destructive. But that does not excuse either side from doing their jobs which requires working with the other side. That is my big complaint right now - especially against the Republicans who worked diligently over the last 4 years at only one thing: making Obama as ineffective as they could. He still succeeded in getting some stuff done but America could have been in a better position right now. But the Democrats didn't exactly do well at helping Obama even though they're supposedly on his side.

I think it was a move that had to be made. Half of the obstruction moves in US history have taken place during Obama's administration. A president deserves to have a vote on the people he/she wants in office. The GOP would not hesitate to do the same if they get the chance. This way some of the judicial positions will have reasonable people in positions. You cannot block everything that comes by and not expect this.

Requiring a Senate supermajority to confirm a president's appointees - I don't care which party - and thus using it as a political weapon against that president is more than a little ridiculous. I would certainly have preferred that this not be necessary, but if that statement about half of all the appointees blocked being during the Obama administration is true, it's an egregious abuse of power. The same would be true if it were a Republican president and a Democratic minority in the Senate.

The advice and consent clause in the Constitution is a check on the President to keep him from being able to pick whoever he wants without restriction, not carte blanche to allow the minority party to hamstring the President and the majority party.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

American politics has eroded into a morass of idiocy, overseen by mental patients. If Republicans were in the majority in the Senate and this action was taken, Rush and the gang would be giggling with glee. But since Democrats are in power this year, the right hates it. However, the next time they get a Senate majority, they will be dancing in the aisles.

It is like the "Obama is always golfing" thing. The Republicans made all sort of excuses for why Brush took so much vacation when he was president (there times as much as Obama has) but they hate it when Obama is off golfing. Even though he is presumably less apt to do something they hate while he's on the back nine.

You have to have double standards to have double standards. Which is why they are so popular with people not the least it interested in democracy.

That said, of course if the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate right now, they would be complaining too. Such is politics.

I wouldn't worry about it though. The US will be a dead country within 50 years. We no longer have the tools to sustain our government or maintain our economy. And selfishness is the order of the day. It can't be fixed.

They had the chance and threatened to use it. That is where the quotes from then Senator Obama and Harry Reid come from....they were arguing (very eloquently and patriotically) against the nuclear option...which the Republicans did not use when they had the chance.

Requiring a Senate supermajority to confirm a president's appointees - I don't care which party - and thus using it as a political weapon against that president is more than a little ridiculous.

And just a few short years ago the Democrats disagreed with that statement.

Quote

I would certainly have preferred that this not be necessary, but if that statement about half of all the appointees blocked being during the Obama administration is true, it's an egregious abuse of power. The same would be true if it were a Republican president and a Democratic minority in the Senate.

I am curious how accurate that claim is too because the CNN report goes on to say that they have only blocked 5 judicial nominations and passed over 200. Which is odd to describe that record as obstructionist. Unless this nuclear option is about something other than judicial nominations.

Quote

The advice and consent clause in the Constitution is a check on the President to keep him from being able to pick whoever he wants without restriction, not carte blanche to allow the minority party to hamstring the President and the majority party.

And the nuclear option in effect gives the current president the authority to appoint, carte blanche, whomever he wants to any position open (except the supreme court) with total disregard for what the minority party thinks about it.

Here, I have positive proof that God does not answer prayers. Please listen very very carefully to what Biden said about the looming threat of the nuclear option posed by the Republicans back in 2005

I do not see the same level of dishonesty from the left, nor have I ever.

In other words...If you don't like the Democrat platform or the policies put forth by the Democratic party then...fuck you. We will destroy democracy in order to achieve our goals. If you oppose our policies then you are the enemy.

So what are you saying Blackwell? That this dysfunctional government is a good thing and that this system works well? For better or worse a president should be able to appoint who he/she wants unless that person is a criminal or something like that. Elections have consequences but elections are nation wide.